SPEECH 

OP 

HON.  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 

OF  ILLINOIS, 

ON 

THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  FEBRUARY  14,  1853. 


Mr.  President  :  I  regret  the  necessity  which  I  conceive  to  exist 
in  trespassing  on  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to-day,  especially 
the  postponement  of  the  deficiency  bill,  to  discuss  the  principles, 
the  objects,  and  the  effects  of  the  resolution  of  the  Senator  from 
Michigan  in  regard  to  European  colonization. 

Thirty  years  ago  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  made 
a  memorable  declaration  with  respect  to  European  colonization 
upon  this  continent.  That  declaration  has  ever  since  been  a 
favorite  subject  of  eulogism  with  orators,  politicians,  and  states- 
men. Recently  it  has  assumed  the  dignified  appellation  of  the 
"  Monroe  doctrine,''''  It  seems  to  be  the  part  of  patriotism  for  all 
to  profess  the  doctrine,  while  our  Government  has  scarcely  ever 
failed  to  repudiate  it,  practicallj^,  whenever  an  opportunity  for  its 
observance  has  been  presented.  The  Oregon  treaty  is  a  noted 
case  in  point.  Prior  to  that  convention  there  was  no  British 
colony  on  this  continent  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  was  confined,  by  its  charter,  to  the  shores 
of  the  bay,  and  to  the  streams  flowing  into  it,  and  to  the  country 
drained  by  them.  The  western  boundary  of  Canada  was  hun- 
dreds of  miles  distant;  and  there  was  no  European  colony  to  be 
found  in  all  that  region  on  the  Pacific  coast  stretching  from  Cali- 
fornia to  the  Russian  possessions.  We  had  a  treaty  of  non-occu- 
pancy with  Great  Britain,  by  the  provisions  of  which  neither 
party  was  to  be  permitted  to  colonize  or  assume  dominion  over 
any  portion  of  that  territory.  We  abrogated  that  treaty  of  non- 
occupancy,  and  then  entered  into  a  convention,  by  the  terms  of 
which  the  country  in  question  was  divided  into  two  nearly  equal 
parts,  by  the  parallel  of  the  forty-ninth  degree  of  latitude,  and  all 
on  the  north  oonfirmed  to  Great  Britain,  and  that  on  the  south  to 
the  United  States.  By  that  treaty  Great  Britain  consented  that 
we  might  establish  Territories  and  States  south  of  the  forty-ninth 
parallel,  and  the  United  States  consented  that  Great  Britain  might 
to  the  north  of  that  parallel,  establish  new  European  colonies  in 
open  and  flagrant  violation  of  the  Monroe  doctrine  I  It  is  unne- 
cessary for  me  to  remind  the  country,  and  especially  my  own 
constituents,  with  what  energy  and  emphasis  I  protested  against 
that  convention,  upon  the  ground  that  it  carried  with  it  the  undis- 


guised  repudiation  of  the  Monroe  declaration,  and  the  consent  of 
this  Republic  that  new  British  colonies  might  be  established  on 
that  portion  of  the  North  American  continent  were  none  existed 
before. 

Again  :  as  late  as  1850,  a  convention  was  entered  into  between 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain — called 
the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty — every  article  and  provision  of 
which  is  predicted  upon  a  practical  negation  and  repudiation  of 
what  is  known  as  the  Monroe  doctrine,  as  I  shall  conclusively 
establish  before  I  close  these  remarks.  Since  the  ratification  of 
that  treaty  and  in  defiance  of  its  express  stipulations,  as  well  as 
of  the  Monroe  declaration,  Great  Britain  has  planted  a  new  colony 
in  Central  America,  known  as  the  colony  of  the  Bay  Islands. 
In  view  of  this  fact,  and  with  the  colony  of  the  Bay  Islands  in 
his  mind's  eye,  the  venerable  Senator  from  Michigan  lays  upon 
the  table  of  the  Senate,  and  asks  us  to  affirm,  by  our  votes,  a 
resolution  in  which  it  is  declared  that  "while  existing  rights 

SHOULD    BE   RESPECTED,   AND    WILL   BE  BY   THE  UnITED    StATES,"  the 

American  continents  "are  henceforth  not  to  he  considered  as  sub- 
jects for  future  colonization  by  any  European  Power,^^  and  "  that 
no  FUTURE  European  colony  or  dominion  shall,  with  their  consent^ 
be  planted  or  established  on  any  part  of  the  North  American  con- 
tinent.^^ 

Now,  sir,  before  I  vote  for  this  resolution,  I  desire  to  under- 
stand, with  clearness  and  precision,  its  purport  and  meaning. 
Existing  rights  are  to  be  respected  !  What  is  to  be  the  construc- 
tion of  this  clause  ?  Is  it  that  all  colonies  established  in  America, 
by  European  Powers,  prior  to  the  passage  of  this  resolution,  are 
to  be  respected  by  the  United  States  as  "existing  rights?"  Is 
this  resolution  to  be  understood  as  a  formal  and  official  declara- 
tion, by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  of  our  acquiescence  in 
the  seizure  of  the  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  and  the  erec- 
tion of  them  into  a  new  British  colony?  When,  in  connection 
with  this  clause  respecting  "  existing  rights,"  we  take  into  con- 
sideration the  one  preceding  it,  in  which  it  is  declared  that 
"  henceforth"  the  American  continents  are  not  open  to  European 
colonization  ;  and  the  ^tduse  immediately  succeeding  it,  which 
says  that  "  no  f  uture  European  colony  or  dominion,''^  shall,  with 
our  consent,  be  planted  on  the  North  American  continent ;  who 
can  doubt  that  great  Britain  will  feel  herself  authorized  to  con- 
strue the  resolution  into  a  declaration  on  our  part  of  unconditional 
acquiescence  in  her  right  to  hold  all  the  colonies  and  dependencies 
she  at  this  time  may  possess  in  America?  Is  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  prepared  to  make  such  a  declaration  ?  Is  this 
Republic,  in  view  of  our  professions  for  the  last  thirty  years,  and 
of  our  present  and  prospective  position,  prepared  to  submit  to 
such  a  result  ?  If  we  are,  let  us  seal  our  lips,  and  talk  no  more 
about  European  colonization  upon  the  American  continents. 
What  is  to  redeem  our  declarations  upon  this  subject  in  the 
future  from  utter  contempt,  if  we  fail  to  vindicate  the  past,  and 
meekly  submit  to  the  humiliation  of  the  present?  With  an 
avowed  policy  of  thirty  years'  standing  that  no  future  European 


colonization  is  to  be  permitted  in  America — affirmed  when  there 
was  no  opportunity  for  enforcing  it,  and  abandoned  whenever  a 
case  was  presented  for  carrj'ing  it  into  practical  effect — is  it  now 
proposed  to  beat  another  retreat  under  cover  of  terrible  threats 
of  awful  consequences  when  the  offence  shall  be  repeated^ 
Hence  for  Ik^^  no  "future"  European  colony  is  to  be  planted  in 
America  with  our  consent  T  It  is  gratifying  to  learn  that  the 
United  States  are  never  going  to  "consent"  to  the  repudiation  of 
the  Monroe  doctrine  again.  No  more  Clayton  and  Bulwer  trea- 
ties; no  more  British  "alliances"  in  Central  America,  New 
Granada,  or  Mexico;  no  more  resolutions  of  oblivion  to  protect 
"existing  rights  !"  Let  England  tremble,  and  Europe  take  warn- 
ing, if  the  offence  is  repeated.  " Should  the  attempt  be  made," 
(says  the  resolution,)  "it  will  leave  the  United  States  free  to 
adopt  such  measures  as  an  independent  nation  may  justly  adopt 
in  defence  of  its  rights  and  honor."  Are  not  the  United  States 
now  free  to  adopt  such  measures  as  an  independent  nation  may 
justly  adopt  in  defence  of  its  rights  and  honor?  Have  we  not 
given  the  notice?  Is  not  thirty  years  sufficient  notice?  And  has 
it  not  been  repeated  within  the  last  eight  years,  and  yet  the  deed 
is  done  in  contempt  of  not  only  the  Monroe  doctrine,  but  of 
solemn  treaty  stipulations?  Will  you  ever  have  a  better  oppor- 
tunity to  establish  the  doctrine — a  clearer  right  to  vindicate,  or 
a  more  flagrant  wrong  to  redress  ?  If  3'OU  do  not  do  it  now,  3'our 
"henceforth"  resolutions,  in  respect  to  "future"  attempts,  may  as 
well  be  dispensed  with.  I  have  no  resolutions  to  bring  forward 
in  relation  to  our  foreign  policy.  Circumstances  have  deprived 
me  ol'the  opportunity  or  disposition  to  participate  actively  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  Senate  this  session.  I  know  not  what  the  pre- 
sent Administration  has  done,  or  is  doing  in  reference  to  this 
question  ;  and  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  incoming  Administration 
free  to  assume  its  own  position,  and  to  take  the  initiation  unem- 
barrassed by  the  action  of  the  Senate. 

My  principal  object  in  addressing  the  Senate  to-day  is  to  avail 
myself  of  the  opportunity,  now  for  the  first  time  presented  by  the 
removal  of  the  injunction  of  secrecy,  of  explaining  my  reasons  for 
opposing  the  ratification  of  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  In 
order  to  clearly  understand  the  question,  in  all  its  bearings,  it  is 
necessary  to  advert  to  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  pre- 
sented. The  Oregon  boundary  had  been  established,  and  im- 
portant interests  had  grown  up  in  that  Territory;  California  had 
been  acquired,  and  an  immense  commerce  had  sprung  into  exist- 
ence ;  lines  of  steamers  had  been  established  from  New  York  and 
New  Orleans  to  Chagres,  and  from  Panama  to  California  and 
Oregon;  American  citizens  had  acquired  the  right  of  way,  and 
were  engaged  in  the  construction  of  a  railroad  across  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama,  under  the  protection  of  treaty  stipulations  with  New 
Granada  ;  other  American  citizens  had  secured  the  right  of  way, 
and  were  preparing  to  construct  a  canal  from  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Pacific,  through  Lake  Nicaragua;  and  still  other  American  citi- 
zens had  procured  the  right  of  way,  and  were  preparing  to  com- 
mence the  construction  of  a  railroad,  under  a  grant  from  Mexico, 


4 

across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec.  Thus,  the  right  of  transit,  on 
all  the  routes  across  the  Isthmus,  had  passed  into  American  hands, 
and  were  within  the  protection  and  control  of  the  American  Gov- 
ernment. 

In  view  of  this  state  of  things,  Mr.  Hise,  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed Charg6  d'Alfaires,  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Polk, 
to  the  Central  American  States,  negotiated  a  treaty  with  the 
State  of  Nicaragua  which  secured  to  the  United  States  forever 
the  exclusive  privilege  of  opening  and  using  all  canals,  railroads, 
and  other  means  of  communication,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Pacific,  through  the  territory  of  that  Republic.  The  rights,  privi- 
leges, and  immunities  conceded  by  that  treaty  were  all  that  any 
American  could  have  desired.  Its  provisions  are  presumed  to  be 
within  the  knowledge  of  every  Senator,  and  ought  to  be  familiar 
to  the  people  of  this  country.  The  grant  was  to  the  United  States, 
or  to  such  compauies  as  should  be  organized  under  its  authority, 
or  received  under  its  protection.  The  privileges  were  exclusive 
in  their  terms  and  perpetual  in  their  tenure.  They  were  to  con- 
tinue forever  as  inalienable  American  rights.  In  addition  to  the 
privilege  of  constructing  and  using  all  roads  and  canals  through 
the  territory  of  Nicaragua,  Mr.  Rise's  treaty  also  secured  to  the 
United  States  the  right  to  erect  and  garrison  such  fortifications 
as  we  should  deem  necessary  at  the  termini  of  such  communica- 
tion on  each  ocean,  and  at  intermediate  points  along  the  lines  of 
the  works,  together  with  a  grant  of  lands  three  miles  square  at 
the  termini  for  the  establishment  of  towns  with  free  ports  and 
free  institutions.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  detain  the  Senate 
by  reading  the  provisions  of  this  treaty.  It  is  published  in  the 
document  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  is  open  to  every  one  who  chooses 
to  examine  it.  It  was  submitted  to  the  Department  of  State  in 
Washington  on  the  15th  of  September,  1849,  but  never  sent  to  the 
Senate  for  ratification.  In  the  meantime  the  Administration  of 
General  Taylor  had  superseded  Mr.  Hise  by  the  appointment  of 
another  representative  to  the  Central  American  States,  and  in- 
structed him  in  procuring  a  grant  for  a  canal,  to  "claim  no  pecu- 
liar PRIVILEGE  NO  EXCLUSIVE  RIGHT  NO  MONOPOLY  OF  COMMERCIAL 

INTERCOURSE." 

After  having  thus  instructed  Mr.  Squire  as  to  the  basis  of  the 
treaty  which  he  was  to  conclude,  Mr.  Clayton  seems  to  have  been 
apprehensive  that  Mr.  Hise  might  already  have  entered  into  a 
convention  by  which  the  United  States  had  secured  the  exclusive 
and  perpetual  privilege,  and  in  order  to  guard  against  such  a  con- 
tingency, he  adds,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  same  letter  of  instruc- 
tions, the  following: 

"  If  a  charter  or  grant  of  the  right  of  way  shall  have  been  incautiously  or  inconsider- 
ately made  before  your  arrival  in  that  country,  seek  to  have  it  properly  modified  to  an- 
swer THE  ENDS  WE  HAVE  IN  VIEW." 

In  other  words,  if  Mr.  Hise  shall  have  made  a  treaty  by  which 
he  may  have  secured  all  the  desired  privileges  to  the  United  States 
exclusively,  "seek  to  have  it  properly  modified,"  so  as  to  form  a 
partnership  with  England  and  the  other  monarchial  Powers  of 
Europe,  and  thus  lay  the  foundation  for  an  alliance  between  the 


5 


New  and  the  Old  World,  by  which  the  right  of  European  Powers 
to  intermeddle  with  the  affairs  of  American  States  will  be  es- 
tablished and  recognised.  With  these  instructions  in  his  pocket, 
Mr.  Squier  arrived  at  Nicaragua,  and  before  he  reached  the  Seat 
of  Government,  learned,  by  a  "publication  in  the  Gazette  of  the 
Isthmus,"  that  Mr.  Hise  was  already  negotiating  a  treaty  in  re- 
spect to  the  contemplated  canal.  Without  knowing  the  provisions 
of  the  treaty,  but  taking  it  for  granted  that  it  was  in  viola- 
tion of  the  principles  of  General  Taylor's  Administration,  as  set 
forth  in  his  instructions,  Mr.  Squier  immediately  dispatched  a 
notice  to  the  Government  of  Nicaragua  that  "  Mr.  Hise  was  su- 

*  perseded  on  the  2d  April  last,  upon  which  date  I  (Mr.  Squier) 

*  received  my  commission  as  his  successor;"  "that  Mr.  Hise  was 

*  not  empowered  to  enter  upon  any  negotiations  of  the  character 

*  referred  to  ;"  and  concluding  with  the  following  request : 

"/  have,  therefore,  to  request  that  no  action  he  taken  by  the  Government  of 

Nicaragua  upon  the  inchoate  treaty  which  may  have  been  negotiated  at  Guatemali, 
but  that  the  same  may  be  allowed  to  iass  as  an  unofficial  act  " 

On  the  same  day,  Mr.  Squier,  with  commendable  promptness, 
sends  a  letter  to  Mr.  Clayton,  informing  our  Government  of  what 
he  had  learned  in  respect  to  the  probable  conclusion  of  the  Hise 
treat}^,  and  expressing  his  apprehension  that  the  information  may 
be  true,  and  adds  : 

"  If  so,  I  shall  he  placed  in  a  situation  of  some  embarrassment,  as  I  conceive  that  Mr. 
Hise  has  no  authority  for  the  step  he  has  taken,  and  is  certainly  not  informed  of  the 
present  views  and  desires  of  our  Government." 

He  also  adds: 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  I  have  addressed  a  note  [B]  to  the  Government  of  this 
Republic,  (Nicaragua,)  requesting  that  the  treaty  made  at  Guatemala,  (if  any  such  exists,) 
may  be  allowed  to  pssi  as  an  unofficial  act,  and  that  neio  negotiations  may  be  entered 
upon  at  the  Seat  of  Government." 

Having  communicated  this  important  intelligence  to  his  own 
Government,  Mr.  Squier  proceeded  on  his  journey  with  a  patriotic 
zeal  equal  to  the  importance  of  his  mission,  and  on  his  arrival 
upon  the  theatre  of  his  labors,  opened  negotiations  for  a  new 
treaty  in  accordance  with  the  "  present  views  and  desires  of  our 
Government,"  as  contained  in  his  instructions.  The  new  treaty 
was  concluded  on  the  3d  of  September,  1849,  and  transmitted  to 
the  Government,  with  a  letter  explanatory  of  the  negotiation, 
bearing  date  the  10th  of  the  same  month.  Mr.  Squier's  treaty, 
so  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  published  correspondence — for  the 
injunction  of  secrecy  forbids  a  reference  to  more  authentic  sources 
of  information — is  in  strict  accordance  with  his  instructions,  and 
entirely  free  from  any  odious  provisions  which  might  secure  "  pe- 
culiar privileges  or  exclusive  rights"  to  the  United  States. 

These  two  treaties — the  one  negotiated  by  Mr.  Hise,  and  the 
other  by  Mr.  Squier — were  in  the  State  Department  in  this  city 
when  Congress  met  in  December,  1849.  The  Administration  of 
General  Taylor  was  at  liberty  to  choose  between  them,  and  sub- 
mit the  one  or  the  other  to  the  Senate  for  ratification.  The  Hise 
treaty  was  suppressed,  without  giving  the  Senate  an  opportunity 
of  ratifying  it  or  advising  its  rejection.  I  am  aware  that  a  single 
letter  published  in  this  document  of  correspondence,  (House  of 


6 


Representatives  Executive  document,  No.  75,)  gives  an  apparent 
excuse — a  mere  pretext — for  withholciing  it  from  the  Senate.  I 
allude  to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Carcache,  Charg6  d 'Affaires  from  Nica- 
ragua, to  Mr.  Clayton,  dated  Washington,  December  31, 1849,  that 
the  Hise  treaty  "has  been,  as  is  publicly  and  universally  known, 

*  disapproved  by  my  Government,  and  that  my  Government  desires 
*the  ratification  of  the  treaty  signed  by  Mr.  Squier  on  the  3d  of 

*  September  last."  And  I  am  also  aw^are  that  Mr.  Clayton,  in 
reply  to  this  letter,  stated  to  Mr.  Carcache  that  "if,  however,  as 
*you  state,  that  convention  has  not  been  approved  by  your  Gov- 
'  ernment,  there  is  no  necessity  for  its  further  consideration  by  the 

*  Government  of  the  United  States."  From  this  it  wouhl  seem 
that  Mr.  Clayton  desires  to  have  it  understood  that  the  fiiilure  of 
the  Government  of  Nicaragua  to  approve  the  Hise  treaty,  was 
the  reason  why  he  suppressed  it,  and  refused  to  allow  the  Senate 
the  opportunity  of  ratifying  it.  Is  that  the  true  reason?  Why 
did  the  Government  of  Nicaragua  fail  to  approve  the  Hise  treaty? 
I  have  already  shown,  conclusiv  ely,  that  the  failure  to  approve;  on 
the  part  of  the  Government  of  Nicaragua,  was  produced  by  the 
representative  of  General  Taylor's  Administration  in  Central 
America,  acting  in  obedience  to  the  imperative  instruction  of  the 
State  Department  of  this  city,  over  the  signature  of  Mr.  Clayton 
himself  Mr.  Clayton  had  instructed  Mr.  Squier,  in  advance,  that 
in  the  event  Mr.  Hise  should  have  made  a  treaty  before  his  ar- 
rival in  the  country,  he  (Mr.  Squier)  must  "seek  to  have  it  properly 
modified  to  answer  the  ends  we  have  in  view."  Mr.  Squier  did 
*'seek"  to  have  it  so  "  modified,"  and  with  great  difficulty,  as  the 
correspondence  proves,  succeeded  in  the  effort.  The  Government 
and  people  of  Nicaragua  were  anxious  to  grant  the  exclusive  and 
perpetual  privilege  to  the  United  States,  and  to  prevent  the  con- 
summation of  the  grand  European  alliance  and  partnership.  Mr. 
Squier,  in  his  letter  of  September  10,  1 849,  communicating  to  Mr. 
Clayton  the  joyous  news  that  his  efforts  had  been  crow^ned  with 
complete  success,  says : 

"  Sir  :  /  have  the  satisfaction  of  ivforming  the  Department  that  I  have  succeeded 
in  accomplishing  the  objects  of  my  mission  to  this  Republic.  " 

Then,  after  giving  an  exposition  of  the  main  provisions  of  his 
treaty,  he  details  the  embarrassment  he  was  compelled  to  en- 
counter before  he  could  bring  the  Government  of  Nicaragua  to 
terms.  Hear  him,  and  then  judge  whether  the  failure  of  the 
Government  of  Nicaragua  to  approve  the  Hise  treaty  was  the 
reason  why  Mr.  Clayton  refused  to  submit  it  to  the  Senate  for 
ratification ! 

"  The  principal  source  of  embarrassment  was  Mr.  Rise's  special  convention, 
which  had  raist-d  extravagant  hopes  of  a  relation  between  the  United  States,  amounting 
to  something  closer  than  exists  between  the  States  of  our  Confederacy.  However,  as 
matters  have  been  finally  arranged,  they  are  all  the  better  for  this  Republic,  and  quite 
as  favorable  to  the  United  States." 

So  it  seems  that  the  Hise  treaty  was  "the  principal  source  of 
embarrassment"  to  the  consummation  of  the  European  partner- 
ship. It  "had  raised  extravagant  hopes"  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment and  people  of  Nicaragua  of  a  "closer"  relation  to  the 
United  States,  which  it  was  difficult  to  induce  them  to  relinquish. 


It  required  all  the  zeal,  skill,  and  tact  of  Mr.  Squier  to  accom- 
plish so  great  a  feat.  "Finally,"  the  matter  was  "arranged," 
and  the  result  communicated  to  the  Department  with  "  satisfac- 
tion," in  these  memorable  words,  which  must  have  carried  great 
joy  to  Mr.  Clayton's  heart:  "I  have  succeeded  in  accomplishing 
the  objects  of  my  mission  to  this  Republic."  Rejoice,  all  3^e  ad- 
vocates of  European  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  the  American 
continfint !  The  Hise  treaty  is  dead  !  The  principal  source  of 
embarrassment  is  removed !  Nicaragua  has  failed  to  approve 
the  special  convention,  granting  peculiar  privileges  and  exclu- 
sive rights  to  the  United  States!  This  failure  has  enabled  us 
"  properly  to  modify  the  grant,  so  as  to  answer  the  ends  we  have 
in  view,"  and  at  the  same  time  relieves  Mr.  Clayton  from  the 
imminent  risk  of  submitting  these  peculiar  privileges  to  the 
Senate,  where  there  was  great  danger  of  their  being  accepted. 
Nicaragua  has  at  last  consented  !  Her  appeals  to  the  United 
States  for  mediation  or  protection  against  British  aggression 
being  unheeded — her  letters  to  our  Government  remaining  unan- 
swered— their  receipt  not  even  acknowledged — her  hopes  of  a 
closer  relation  to  this  Union  blasted — the  Monroe  doctrine  aban- 
doned— the  Mosquito  kingdom,  under  the  British  protectorate, 
rapidly  absorbing  her  territory,  she  sinks  in  despair,  and  yields 
herself  to  the  European  partnership  which  was  about  to  be  estab- 
lished over  all  Central  America  by  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer 
treaty ! 

Now,  sir,  I  repeat  that  these  two  treaties — the  one  negotiated 
by  Mr.  Hise  and  the  other  by  Mr.  Squier,  the  first  conceding  pe- 
culiar privileges  and  exclusive  and  perpetual  rights  to  the  United 
States;  the  second  admitting  of  a  partnership  in  these  privileges 
with  European  Powers,  Mr.  Clayton  suppressed  the  first,  and 
sent  the  second  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  and  immediately 
opened  negotiations  with  the  British  Minister,  which  resulted  in 
what  is  known  as  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  In  stating 
my  objections  to  this  treaty,  I  shall  not  become  a  party  to  the 
protracted  controversy  respecting  it?  true  meaning  and  construc- 
tion, which  has  engaged  so  much  of  the  attention  of  this  session. 
I  leave  that  in  the  hands  of  those  who  conducted  the  negotiation 
and  procured  its  ratification.  That  is  their  own  quarrel,  with 
which  I  have  no  disposition  to  interfere.  Establish  which  con- 
struction you  please — that  contended  for  by  the  Secretary  of 
State  who  signed  it,  or  the  one  insisted  upon  by  the  venerable 
Senator  from  Michigan,  and  those  who  acted  in  concert  with  him 
in  ratifying  it — neither  obviates  any  one  of  my  objections. 

In  the  first  place,  I  was  unwilling  to  enter  into  treaty  stipula- 
tions with  Great  Britain  or  any  other  European  Power  in  respect 
to  the  American  continent,  by  the  terms  of  which,  we  should 
pledge  the  faith  of  this  Republic  not  to  do  in  all  coming  time  that 
which  in  the  progress  of  events  our  interests,  duty,  and  even 
safety  may  compel  us  to  do.  I  have  already  said,  and  now  re- 
peat, that  every  article,  clause,  and  provision  of  that  treaty  is 
predicated  upon  a  virtual  negation  and  repudiation  of  the  Monroe 
declaration  in  relation  to  European  colonization  on  this  continent. 


The  article  inviting  any  Power  on  earth,  with  which  England  or 
the  United  States  are  on  terms  of  friendly  intercourse,  to  enter 
into  similar  stipulations,  and  which  pledges  the  good  offices  of 
each,  when  requested  by  the  other,  to  aid  in  the  new  negotiations 
with  the  other  Central  American  States,  and  which  pledges  the 
good  offices  of  all  the  nations  entering  into  the  "alliance"  to  set- 
tle disputes  between  the  States  and  Governments  of  Central 
America,  not  only  recognises  the  right  of  European  Powers  to 
interfere  with  the  affairs  of  the  American  continent,  but  invites 
the  exercise  of  such  right,  an'l  makes  it  obligatory  to  do  so  in 
certain  cases.  It  establishes,  in  terms,  an  alliance  between  the 
contracting  parties,  and  invites  all  other  nations  to  become  parties 
to  it.  I  was  opposed  also  to  the  clause  which  stipulates  that 
neither  Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States  will  ever  occupy, 
colonize,  or  exercise  dominion  over  any  portion  of  ?sicaragua, 
Costa  Rico,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America. 
I  did  not  desire  then,  nor  do  I  now,  to  annex  any  portion  of  that 
country  to  this  Union.  I  do  not  know  that  the  time  will  ever 
come  in  my  day  when  I  would  be  willing  to  do  so.  Yet  I  was 
unwilling  to  give  the  pledge  that  neither  we  nor  our  successors 
ever  would.  This  in  an  age  of  rapid  movements  and  great 
changes.  How  long  is  it  since  those  who  made  this  treaty  would 
have  told  us  that  the  time  would  never  come  when  we  would 
want  California  or  any  portion  of  the  Pacific  coast?  California 
being  a  State  of  the  Union,  who  is  authorized  to  say  that  the 
time  will  not  arrive  when  our  interests  and  safety  may  require 
us  to  possess  some  portion  of  Central  America,  which  lies  half 
way  between  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  possessions  and  embraces 
the  great  water  lines  of  commerce  between  the  two  oceans  ?  I 
think  it  the  wiser  and  safer  policy  to  hold  the  control  of  our  own 
action,  and  leave  those  who  are  to  come  after  us  untrammeled 
and  free  to  do  whatever  they  may  deem  their  duty,  when  the 
time  shall  arrive.  They  will  have  a  better  right  to  determine 
for  themselves,  when  the  necessity  for  action  may  arise,  than  we 
have  now  to  prescribe  the  line  of  duty  for  them.  I  was  equally 
opposed  to  that  other  clause  in  the  same  article,  which  stipulates 
that  neither  party  will  ever  fortify  any  portion  of  Central  Amer- 
ica, or  any  place  commanding  the  entrance  to  the  canal,  or  in  the 
vicinity  thereof.  It  is  not  reciprocal,  for  the  reason  that  it  leaves 
the  Island  of  Jamaica,  a  British  colony,  strongly  fortified,  the 
nearest  military  and  naval  station  to  the  line  of  the  canal.  It  is, 
therefore,  equivalent  to  a  stipulation  that  the  United  States  shall 
never  have  or  maintain  any  fortification  in  the  vicinity  of,  or 
commanding  the  line  of  navigation  and  commerce  through  said 
canal,  while  Eno:land  may  keep  and  maintain  those  she  now  has. 

I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  clause  in  relation  to  the  British 
protectorate  over  the  Misquito  coast.  It  is  equivocal  in  terms, 
and  no  man  can  say  with  certainty  whether  the  true  construc- 
tion excludes  the  protectorate  from  the  continent,  or  recognises 
its  rightful  existence,  and  imposes  restraints  upon  its  use  and  ex- 
ercise. Equivocal  terms  in  treaties  are  easily  understood  where 
the  stipulations  are  between  a  strong  Power  on  the  one  hand;, 


9 


and  a  feeble  one  upon  the  other.  The  stronger  enforces  its  own 
construction,  and  the  weaker  has  no  alternative  but  reluctant 
acquiescence.  In  this  case  neither  party  may  be  willing  to  recog- 
nise the  potential  right  of  the  other  to  prescribe  and  enforce  a 
construction  of  the  equivocal  terms  which  shall  enable  it  to  ap- 
propriate to  itself  all  the  advantages  in  question.  It  would  seem 
that  our  own  Government  have  not  ventured  to  insist  upon  a  rigid 
enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  in  relation  to  the  Brit- 
ish protectorate  over  the  Mosquito  coast,  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  was  explained  and  understood  when  submitted  to  the  Senate 
for  ratification.  Has  the  British  protectorate  disappeared  from 
Central  America?  I  am  not  referring  to  the  matters  in  contro- 
versy between  certain  Senators  who  supported  the  treaty  and 
Mr  Clayton,  in  respect  to  the  Balize  settlement.  I  allude  to  the 
Mosquito  coast,  which,  by  name  and  in  terms,  is  expressly  made 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty.  Has  the  British  protec- 
torate disappeared  from  that  part  of  Central  America  ?  Have  the 
British  authorities  retired  from  the  port  of  San  Juan,  and  thereby 
recognised  the  right  of  American  citizens  and  vessels  to  arrive 
and  depart  free  of  hindrance  and  molestation  ?  Is  it  not  well 
known  that  the  protectorate  is  continued  and  maintained  wth  in- 
creased vigor  and  boldness?  Is  not  the  British  consul  at  San 
Juan  now  actively  engaged  in  disposing  of  the  soil,  conveying 
town  lots  and  lands,  and  exercising  the  highest  functions  of  sov- 
ereignty under  the  pretext  of  protecting  the  rights  of  the  Mos- 
quito King  ?  These  things  are  being  done  openly  and  without  dis- 
guise, and  are  well  known  to  the  world.  Can  any  Senator  inform 
me  whether  this  Government  has  taken  the  slightest  notice  of 
these  transactions  ?  Has  our  Government  entered  its  protest 
against  these  infractions  of  the  treaty,  or  demanded  a  specific 
compliance  with  our  understanding  of  its  terms  ?  How  long  are 
we  to  wait  for  Great  Britain  to  abandon  her  occupancy  and  with- 
draw her  machinery  of  Government?  Nearly  three  years  have 
elapsed  since  we  were  boastingly  told  that  by  the  provisions  of 
the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  Great  Britain  was  expe'led  from 
Central  America.  Shall  we  wait  patiently  until  our  silence  shall 
be  constructed  into  acquiescence  in  her  right  to  remain  and  main- 
tain her  possessions  ? 

But  there  was  another  insuperable  objection  to  the  Clayton  and 
Bulwer  treaty  which  increases,  enlarges,  and  extends  the  force  of 
all  the  obnoxious  provisions  I  have  pointed  out.  ]  alluded  to  the 
article  in  which  it  is  provided  that — 

*'The  Government  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  having  not  only  desired 
to  accomplish  a  particular  object,  but  also  to  establish  a  general  pkjnciple, 

THEX   HEHEBT   agree  TO  EXTEND  THEIR   PROTECTION,  BY  TREATY  STIPULATIONS,  TO 

ANY  OTHER  PRACTICABLE  COMMUNICATIONS,  whether  by  caual  or  railway,  across  the 
Isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South  Am.erica,  and  especially  to  the  interoceanie 
communications,  should  the  same  prove  to  be  practicable,  whether  by  canal  or  railway, 
which  are  now  proposed  to  he  established  by  the  way  of  Tehuantepec  or  Panama." 

The  "particular  object"  which  the  parties  had  in  view  being 
thus  accomplished — the  Hise  treaty  defeated — the  exclusive  pri- 
vilege to  the  United  States  surrendered  and  abandoned,  and  the 
European  partnership  established — yet  they  were  not  satisfied. 


lb 

They  were  not  content  to  "accomplish  a  particular  object,"  but 
desired  to  "  establish  a  general  principle  !"  That  which,  by  the 
terms  of  the  treaty,  was  particular  and  local  to  the  five  States  of 
Central  America,  is,  in  this  article,  extended  to  Mexico  on  the 
north,  and  to  New  Grenada  on  the  south,  and  declared  to  be  a 
general  principle  by  which  any  and  all  other  practicable  routes 
of  communication  across  the  Isthmus  between  North  and  South 
America,  are  to  be  governed  and  protected  by  the  allied  Powers. 
New  and  additional  treaty  stipulations  are  to  be  entered  into  for 
this  purpose,  and  the  network  which  had  been  prepared  and 
spread  over  all  Central  America,  is  to  be  extended  far  enough 
into  Mexico  and  New"  Granada  to  cover  all  the  lines  of  commu- 
nication, whether  by  railway  or  canal,  and  especially  to  include 
Tehuantepec  and  Panama.  When  it  is  remembered  that  the  treaty 
in  terms  establishes  an  alliance  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  and  engages  to  invite  all  other  Powers,  with  which 
either  is  on  terms  of  friendly  intercourse,  to  become  parties  to 
its  provisions,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  article  seeks  to  make  the 
principles  of  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty  the  law  of  nations  in 
respect  to  American  affairs.  The  general  principle  is  establishec'  ; 
the  right  of  European  Powers  to  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  Ameri- 
can States  is  recognised  ;  the  propriety  of  the  exercise  of  that 
right  is  acknowledged  ;  and  the  extent  to  which  the  allied  Powers 
shall  carry  their  protection,  and  the  limits  within  which  they 
shall  confine  their  operations,  are  subject  to  treaty  stipulations  in 
the  future. 

When  the  American  continent  shall  have  passed  under  the 
protectorate  of  the  allied  Powers,  and  her  future  made  dependent 
upon  treaty  stipulations  for  carrying  into  effect  the  object  of  the 
alliance,  Europe  will  no  longer  have  cause  for  serious  apprehen- 
sions at  the  rapid  growth,  expansion,  and  development  of  our 
Federal  Union.  She  will  then  console  herself,  that  limits  have 
been  set  and  barriers  erected  beyond  which  the  territories  of  this 
Republic  can  never  extend,  nor  its  principles  prevail.  In  confirm- 
ation of  this  view  she  will  find  additional  cause  for  congratu- 
lation when  she  looks  into  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Mexico,  and 
there  sees  the  sacred  honor  of  this  Republic  irrevocably  pledged 
that  we  will  never,  in  all  coming  time,  annex  any  more  Mexican 
territory  in  the  mode  in  which  Texas  was  acquired.  The  fifth 
article  contains  the  follovvmg  extraordinary  provision  : 

*'  The  boundary  line  established  by  this  article  shall  be  religiously  respected  by  each 
of  the  two  Republics,  and  no  change  shall  ever  be  made  therein  except  by  the  express 
and  free  consent  of  both  nations,  lawfully  given  by  the  General  Government  of  each, 
in  conformity  with  its  own  Constitution." 

One  would  naturally  suppose  that  for  all  the  ordinary  purposes 
of  a  treaty  of  peace,  the  first  clause  of  the  paragraph  would  have 
been  entirely  sufficient.  It  declares  that  "the  boundary  line  es- 
l^ablished  by  this  article  shall  be  religiously  respected  by  each  of 
the  two  Republics."  Why  depart  from  the  usual  course  of  pro- 
ceeding in  such  cases,  and  add,  that  "no  change  shall  ever  be  made 
therein,  except  hy  the  express  and  free  consent  of  both  nations, 
LAWFULLY  given  by  the  General  Government  of  each,  in  conformity 


11 


with  its  OWN  Constitution."  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  pecu- 
liar phraseology?  The  history  of  Texas  furnishes  the  key  by 
which  the  hidden  meaning  can  be  unlocked.  The  Sabine  was 
once  the  boundary  between  the  Republics  of  the  United  States 
and  Mexico  By  the  revolt  of  Texas  and  the  establishment  of 
her  independence,  and  the  acknowledgment  thereof  by  the  great 
Powers  of  the  world,  and  her  annexation  to  the  United  States,  the 
boundary  between  the  two  Republics  was  "changed"  from  the 
Sabine  to  the  Rio  Grande  without  "the  express  and  free  consent 
of  both  nations,  lawfully  given  by  the  General  Government  of 
each,  in  conformity  with  its  own  Constitution."  Mexico  regarded 
that  change  a  just  cause  of  war,  and  accordingly  invaded  Texas 
with  a  view  to  the  recovery  of  the  lost  territory.  A  protracted 
war  ensued,  in  which  thousand  of  lives  were  lost,  and  millions  of 
money  expended,  when  peace  is  concluded  upon  the  express  condi- 
tions that  the  treaty  should  contain  an  open  and  frank  avowal  that 
the  United  States  has  been  wrong  in  the  causes  of  the  war,  by  the 
pledge  of  her  honor  never  to  repeat  the  act  which  led  to  hostilities. 

Wherever  you  turn  your  eye,  whether  to  your  own  record,  to 
the  statute  books,  to  the  history  of  this  country  or  of  Mexico,  or 
to  the  diplomatic  history  of  the  world,  this  humiliating  and  de- 
grading acknowledgment  stares  you  in  the  face,  as  a  monument 
of  your  own  creation,  to  the  dishonor  of  our  common  country. 
Well  do  I  remember  the  determined  and  protracted  efforts  of  the 
minority  to  expunge  this  odious  clause  from  the  treaty  before  its 
ratification,  and  how,  on  the  4'h  of  March,  1848,  we  were  voted 
down  by  forty-two  to  eleven.  The  stain  which  that  clause  fas- 
tened upon  the  history  of  our  country  was  not  the  only  objection 
I  urged  to  its  retention  in  the  treaty.  It  violated  a  great  princi- 
ple of  public  policy  in  relation  to  this  continent.  It  pledges  the 
iaith  of  this  Republic,  that  our  successors  shall  not  do  that  which 
duty  to  the  interests  and  honor  of  the  country,  in  the  progress  of 
events,  may  compel  them  to  do.  I  do  not  meditate  or  look  with 
favor  upon  any  aggression  upon  Mexico.  I  do  not  desire,  at  this 
time,  to  annex  any  portion  of  her  territory  to  this  Union;  nor  am 
I  prepared  to  say  that  the  time  will  ever  come,  in  my  day,  when 
I  w^ould  be  willing  to  sanction  such  a  proposition.  But  who  can 
say,  that,  amid  the  general  wreck  and  demoralization  in  Mexico, 
a  state  of  things  may  not  arise  in  which  a  just  regard  for  our  own 
rights  and  safety,  and  for  the  sake  of  humanity  and  civilization, 
may  render  it  imperative  for  us  to  do  that  which  was  done  in  the 
case  of  Texas,  and  thereby  change  the  boundary  between  the  two 
Republics,  without  the  free  consent  of  the  General  Government  of 
Mexico,  lawfully  given  in  conformity  with  her  Constitution  ?  Re- 
cent events  in  ^Sonora,  Chihuahua,  and  Tamaulipas,  do  not  estab- 
lish the  wisdom  and  propriety  of  that  line  of  policy  which  ties  our 
hands  in  advance,  and  deprives  the  Government  of  the  right,  in 
the  luture,  of  doing  whatever  duty  and  honor  may  require,  when 
the  necessity  for  action  may  arrive. 

Mr.  President,  one  of  the  resolutions  under  consideration  makes 
a  declaration  in  relation  to  the  Island  of  Cuba,  which  requires  a 
passing  notice.    It  is  in  the  following  words: 


IS 


"  That  while  the  United  States  disclaim  any  designs  upon  the  Island  of  Cuba,  incon- 
sistent with  the  laws  of  nations  and  with  their  duties  to  Spain,  they  consider  it  due  to 
the  vast  importance  of  the  subject,  to  make  known,  in  this  solemn  manner,  that  they 
should  view  all  efforts  on  the  part  of  any  other  Power  to  procure  possession,  whether 
peaceably  or  forcibly,  of  that  island,  which  as  a  naval  or  military  position,  must,  under 
circumstances  easy  to  be  foreseen,  become  dangerous  to  their  southern  coast,  to  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico,  and  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  as  unfriendly  acts,  directed  against 
them,  to  be  resisted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power." 

That  we  would  resist  any  attempt  to  transfer  the  Island  of  Cuba 
to  any  European  Power,  either  with  or  without  the  consent  of 
Spain,  there  is,  I  trust,  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  American, 
and  the  fact  is  as  well  known  to  Europe  as  it  is  to  our  own  coun- 
try. That  the  United  States  do  not  meditate  any  designs  upon 
the  island  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  nations,  and  with  their 
duties  to  Spain,  has  been  demonstrated  to  the  world  in  a  manner 
that  forbids  the  necessity  for  a  disclaimer  of  unworthy  and  per- 
fidious purposes  on  our  part.  The  resolutions  convey,  beneath 
this  disclaimer,  the  implication  that  our  character  is  subject  to 
suspicion  upon  that  point.  Shall  we  let  the  presumption  go 
abroad  that  a  disclaimer  of  an  act  of  dishonesty  and  perfidy  and 
infamy  has  become  necessary  upon  our  part?  Sir,  is  there  any 
thing  in  the  history  of  our  relations  with  foreign  nations,  or  in  re- 
spect to  Cuba,  that  should  subject  our  country  to  such  injurious 
imputations?  When  has  our  Government  failed  to  perform  its 
whole  duty  as  a  neutral  Power  in  respect  to  Cuba  ?  The  only  com- 
plaint has  been,  that  in  its  great  anxiety  to  preserve  in  good  faith 
its  neutral  relations,  it  has  permitted  treaty  stipulations  with 
Spain,  providing  for  the  protection  of  our  citizens,  to  be  wantonly 
and  flagrantly  violated.  No  suspicion  that  this  Government  has 
been  wanting  in  energy  and  fidelity  in  the  enforcement  of  our 
laws  has  been  entertained  in  any  quarter.  It  was  the  excessive 
energy  and  severity  with  which  the  duty  was  performed  that  has 
provoked  the  disapprobation  of  some  portion  of  the  American 
people. 

Sir,  what  right  has  Great  Britain  to  call  upon  the  United 
States,  as  she  did  in  a  late  application,  to  enter  into  a  negotiation 
to  guaranty  Cuba  to  Spain?  Such  a  step  might  have  been  ne- 
cessary on  the  part  of  England  in  order  to  satisfy  Spain  that  she 
has  abandoned  the  policy  which  for  centuries  has  marked  her 
colonial  history  with  plunder  and  rapine.  Why  does  not  Eng- 
land first  restore  to  Spain  the  Island  of  Jamaica,  by  the  seizure 
and  possession  of  which  she  is  enabled  to  overlook  Cuba,  while 
it  gives  her  the  command  of  the  entrance  of  the  proposed  Nicara- 
gua canal?  Why  does  she  not  restore  to  old  Spain  Gibraltar, 
which  from  proximity  and  geographical  position,  naturally  be- 
longs to  her,  and  is  essential  to  her  safety?  Why  does  she  not 
restore  the  colonial  possessions  which  she  has  stretched  all  over 
the  world,  commanding  every  important  military  and  naval  sta- 
tion, both  upon  land  and  water?  Why  does  she  not  restore  them 
to  their  original  owners,  from  whom  she  obtained  them  by  fraud 
and  violence?  Why  does  she  not  do  these  things  before  she  calls 
upon  us  to  enter  into  stipulations  that  we  will  not  rob  Spain  of 
the  Island  of  Cuba  ? 


13 


The  whole  system  of  European  colonization  rests  upon  seizure, 
violence,  and  fraud.  European  Powers  hold  nearly  all  their 
colonies  by  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  tenures.  They  can 
show  no  other  evidence,  no  other  muniment  of  title.  What  is 
there  in  the  history  of  the  United  States  that  requires  us  to  make 
any  such  disclaimer?  We  have  never  acquired  one  inch  of  ter- 
ritory, except  by  honest  purchase,  and  full  payment  of  the  con- 
sideration. We  have  never  seized  any  Spanish  or  other  European 
colony.  We  have  never  invaded  the  rights  of  other  nations.  We 
do  not  hold  in  our  hand  the  results  of  rapine,  violence,  war,  and 
fraud,  for  centuries,  and  then  prate  about  honesty ;  and  propose 
to  honest  people  to  enter  into  guarantees  that  they  will  not  rob 
their  neighbors? 

Fortunately  the  history  of  our  country  subjects  her  to  no  such 
imputation,  and  relieves  us  from  the  necessity  of  making  dis- 
claimers which  carry  with  them  the  implication  of  an  equivocal 
reputation.  England,  France,  and  the  other  European  Powers 
are  at  liberty  to  judge  for  themselves  whether  any  such  necessity 
exists  in  their  case.  I  have  not  much  faith  in  these  gratuitous 
protestations  of  honesty  and  disinterestedness.  They  are  gen- 
erally made  for  the  purpose  of  concealing  a  dark  design  while 
preparations  are  maturing  for  its  execution  !  I  recollect  that 
pending  the  Clayton  and  Bulvver  treaty  before  the  Senate,  a 
rumor  was  set  afloat  that  England  meditated  the  extension  of 
her  dominion  or  protection  over  Costa  Rica,  or  some  other  portion 
of  Central  America.  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  deemed  the  time  op- 
portune and  the  rumor  a  sufficient  excuse  for  addressing  to  our 
Department  of  State  an  official  letter,  disclaiming,  in  the  name 
and  by  the  authority  of  the  British  Government,  any  such  design, 
and  saying : 

*'I  am  also  desired  to  add,  that  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  fixed  and  settled  policy 
of  Great  Britain  to  entangle  herself  by  any  engagement  to  protect  distant  States  over 
whose  policy  and  conduct  it  would  be  imponsible  for  the  British  Government  to  exercise 
any  effective  control.  Such  a  protectorate  would  confer  no  possible  advantage  on  Great 
Britain,  and  might  become  the  source  of  many  embarrassments  to  her." 

Mr.  Clayton  was  so  much  delighted  with  this  frank  disclaimer, 
that  he  promptly  replied : 

**  I  take  pleasure  in  expressing  the  satisfaction  with  which  this  Government  has  re- 
ceived this  friendly  assurance  from  that  of  her  Britannic  Majesty,  and  more  especially  aa 
it  cannot  fail  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  amity  now  existing  between  our  respective  coun- 
tries." 

General  Taylor  deemed  the  matter  of  sufficient  importance  to 
communicate  the  evidence  of  this  *'  friendly  assurance"  to  the 
Senate  in  a  special  message.  Well,  the  treaty  was  ratified,  and 
in  less  than  three  years  Great  Britain  seizes  the  Bay  Islands  and 
erects  them  into  a  colony,  in  the  face  of  this  "friendly  assurance," 
and  in  direct  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  ! 

I  confess  I  have  not  formed  a  very  high  appreciation  of  the 
value  of  these  disclaimers  of  all  intention  of  committing  crimes 
against  our  neighbors.  1  do  not  think  I  should  deem  my  house 
any  more  secure  in  the  night  in  consequence  of  the  thief  having 
pledged  his  honor  not  to  steal  my  property  !  If  I  am  surrounded 
by  honest  men  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  "  friendly  assurance,% 


14 


and  if  by  rogues,  it  would  not  relieve  my  apprehensions  or  afford 
much  security  to  my  rights  !  I  am  unwilling,  therefore,  to  make 
any  disclaimer  as  to  our  purposes  upon  Cuba,  or  to  give  any 
pledge  in  respect  to  existing  rights  upon  this  continent.  The 
nations  of  Europe  have  no  right  to  call  upon  us  for  a  disclaimer 
of  the  one,  or  for  a  pledge  to  protect  the  other.  It  is  true,  British 
newspapers  are  in  the  habit  of  calumniating  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  as  a  set  of  marauders  upon  the  territorial  rights  of 
our  neighbors.  It  is  also  true,  that  for  party  purposes,  some  por- 
tion of  the  press  of  this  country  is  in  the  habit  of  attributing  such 
sentiments  to  some  of  our  public  men ;  but  it  is  not  true,  so  far  as 
I  know,  that  any  one  man  in  either  House  of  Congress  does  enter- 
tain, or  has  ever  entertained  or  avowed  a  sentiment  that  justifies 
such  an  imputation.  I  am  unwilling,  therefore,  to  countenance 
the  vile  slander,  by  voting  for  a  resolution  which  by  implication 
contains  so  base  an  insinuation.  Perhaps  I  may  as  well  speak 
plainly.  I  feel  that  there  may  be  a  lurking  insinuation  in  these 
two  clauses,  having  a  little  bearing  towards  an  individual  of 
about  my  proportions.  It  is  the  vocation  of  some  partisan  presses 
and  personal  organs,  to  denounce  and  stigmatize  a  certain  class 
of  politicians,  by  attributing  to  them  unworthy  and  disreputable 
purposes,  under  the  cognomen  of  "  Young  America."  It  is  their 
amiable  custom,  I  believe,  when  they  come  to  individualize,  to 
point  to  me  as  the  one  most  worthy  to  bear  the  appellation.  I 
have  never  either  assumed  or  disclaimed  it.  I  have  never  before 
alluded  to  it,  and  should  not  on  the  present  occasion,  had  it  not 
been  introduced  into  the  discussions  of  the  Senate  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  leave  the  impression  that  I  evaded  it  if  I  failed  to  notice 
it.  I  am  aware  that  the  Senator,  who  the  other  day  directed  so 
large  a  portion  of  his  speech  against  the  supposed  doctrines  of 
"Young  America,"  had  no  reference  to  myself  in  that  part  of  his 
speech,  and  that  the  only  allusion  he  made  to  me  was  kind  and 
complimentary.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and  those  who  harmo- 
nize with  me  in  sentiment  and  action,  the  votes  to  which  I  have 
referred,  and  the  reasons  I  have  given  in  support  of  them,  consti- 
tute the  only  profession  of  faith  I  deem  it  necessary  to  make  on 
this  subject.  I  am  willing  to  compare  votes  and  acts,  principles 
and  professions,  with  any  Senator  who  chooses  to  assail  me.  I 
yield  to  none  in  strict  observance  of  the  laws  of  nations  and 
treaty  stipulations.  I  may  not  have  been  willing  blindly  or  reck- 
lessly to  pledge  the  faith  of  the  Republic  for  all  time  on  points, 
where  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  was  not  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  pledge  could  be  preserved.  I  may  have  deemed  it  wise 
and  prudent  to  hold  the  control  of  our  own  action,  and  leave  our 
successors  free,  according  to  their  own  sense  of  dut}^  under  the 
circumstances  which  may  then  exist. 

Now,  sir,  a  few  words  with  regard  to  the  Island  of  Cuba.  If 
any  man  desires  my  opinions  upon  that  question,  he  can  learn 
them  very  easily.  They  have  been  proclaimed  frequently  for  the 
last  nine  years,  and  still  remain  unchanged.  I  have  often  said, 
and  now  repeat,  that  so  long  as  the  Island  of  Cuba  is  content  to 
remain  loyal  to  the  Crown  of  Spain,  be  it  so.    I  have  no  desire, 


15 


no  wish  to  disturb  that  relation.  I  have  always  said,  and  now 
repeat,  that  whenever  the  people  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  shall  show 
themselves  worthy  of  freedom  b\'  asserting  and  maintaining  their 
independence,  and  establishing  republican  institutions,  my  heart, 
my  sympathies,  my  prayers,  are  with  them  for  the  accomplishment 
of  the  object.  I  have  often  said,  and  now  repeat,  that  when  that 
independence  shall  have  been  established,  if  it  shall  be  necessary 
to  their  interest  or  safety  to  apply  as  Texas  did  for  annexation,  I 
shall  be  ready  to  do  by  them  as  we  did  by  Texas,  and  receive 
them  into  the  Union.  1  have  said,  and  now  repeat,  that  when- 
ever Spain  shall  come  to  the  conclusion  that  she  cannot  much 
longer  maintain  her  dominion  over  the  island,  and  that  it  is  better 
for  her  to  transfer  it  to  us  upon  fair  and  reasonable  teiTOs,  I  am 
one  of  those  who  would  be  ready  to  accept  the  transfer.  I  have 
said,  and  now  repeat,  that  whenever  Spain  shall  refuse  to  make 
such  transfer  to  us,  and  shall  make  it  to  England,  or  any  other 
Europe-in  Power,  I  would  be  among  those  who  would  be  in  favor 
of  taking  possession  of  the  Island,  and  resisting  such  transfer  at 
all  hazards. 

Thus  far  I  have  often  gone  ;  thus  far  I  novr  go.  These  are  my 
individual  opinions,  not  of  much  consequence,  I  admit,  but  anV 
one  who  desires  to  know  them,  is  welcome  to  them.  But  it  is 
one  thing  for  me  to  entertain  these  individual  sentiments,  and  it 
is  another  and  very  different  thing  to  pledge  forever  and  unalter- 
ably the  policy  of  this  Government  in  a  particular  channel,  in 
defiance  of  any  change  in  the  circumstances  that  may  hereafter 
take  place.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  affirm  by  a  resolution, 
in  the  name  of  the  Republic,  every  opinion  that  I  mav  entertain, 
and  be  willing  to  act  upon  as  the  representive  of  a  local  consti- 
tuency. I  am  not,  therefore,  prepared  to  say  that  it  is  wise  policy 
to  make  any  declaration  upon  the  subject  of  the  Island  of  Cuba. 
Circumstances  not  within  our  control,  and  orgrinating  in  causes 
beyond  our  reach,  may  precipitate  a  state  things  that  would 
change  our  action,  and  reverse  our  whole  line  of  policy.  Cuba, 
in  the  existing  position  of  affairs,  does  not  present  a  practical 
issue.  All  that  we  may  say  or  do  is  merely  speculative,  and  de- 
pendent upon  contingencies  that  may  never  happen.  So  it  is,  in 
a  great  measure,  with  the  discussion  that  has  occupied  so  much 
of  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  relation  to  the  British  settlement  at 
the  Balize.  Although  Great  Britain  has  no  other  title  than  a 
mere  permit  to  cut  log-wood,  it  is  undeniable  that  she  was  in 
possession  of  the  country  before  the  United  States  became  an  in- 
dependent Power,  and  has  maintained  the  undisturbed  possession 
ever  since.  Our  Government  has  recognised  it  as  a  British  colony 
in  various  ways,  and  it  is  so  desio^nated  in  our  public  documents. 
If  the  object  be  to  provoke  a  difficulty  with  England,  regardless 
of  the  merits  of  the  quarrel,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  can  be 
accomplished  as  easily  and  readily  by  a  notice  to  quit  the  Balize 
as  to  abandon  Canada.  But  if  the  object  be  to  establish  and  main- 
tain a  cherished  principle  of  public  policy  in  opposition  to  Eu- 
ropean colonization  in  America,  the  new  British  colony  recently 
established  at  the  islands  in  the  bay  of  Honduras  presents  that 


16 


distinct,  naked  issue,  in  a  form  which  places  us  clearly  in  the 
right.  Now  is  the  time  for  action.  Here  is  a  practical  issue 
presented,  which  should  not  he  evaded  by  vague  generalities  and 
equivocal  resolves,  which  will  be  understood  to  mean  one  thing 
on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  quite  a  different  thing  in  Europe. 
Whatever  action  we  take  should  be  direct,  unequivocal,  and 
againvSt  the  Bay  Island  colony  by  name.  I  am  not  certain  as  to 
the  best  mode  of  proceeding;  but  I  am  inclined  to  the  opinion 
that  the  Executive  should  take  the  initiative,  and  make  a  courte- 
ous, but  firm  and  manly  protest  against  the  infraction  of  the 
Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  as  well  as  the  violation  of  our  known 
policy  in  relation  to  European  colonization,  by  the  creation  of 
this  new  British  colony,  together  with  the  distinct  and  unequivo- 
cal declaration,  that  in  no  event  or  contingency  can  the  United 
States  acquiesce  in  the  continuence  of  the  Bay  Island  colony.  If 
Great  Britain  yields  to  the  protest,  and  discontinues  the  colony, 
our  rights  and  honor  will  be  vindicated,  and  a  sufficient  notice 
will  be  given  to  the  world  of  our  determination  to  enforce  the 
principle  hereafter.  If,  on  the  contrary,  Great  Britain  should  in- 
sist in  maintaining  the  colony  in  contempt  of  our  protest,  it  would 
become  the  duty  of  the  President  to  communicate  the  result  to 
Congress,  with  the  recommendation  for  the  adoption  of  such 
measures  as  should  be  necessary  to  enable  him  to  vindicate  our 
violated  rights.  I  am  not  particular,  however,  as  to  the  form  of 
the  proceeding.  My  great  desire  is  to  meet  the  question  fairly, 
and  assume  whatever  responsibility  the  consequences  may  involve, 
and  not  beat  a  disgraceful  retreat  under  shelter  of  terrible  threats 
in  the  event  the  offence  is  repeated.  If  we  act  with  becoming 
discretion  and  firmness,  I  have  no  apprehension  that  the  en- 
forcement of  our  rights  will  lead  to  hostilities;  Great  Britain  will 
not  be  willing  to  engage  in  a  contest  of  arms  with  us  when  she 
is  so  clearly  in  the  wrong.  She  has  given  bond  and  security  to 
keep  the  peace  towards  the  United  States,  and  she  well  knows 
that  the  condition  of  a  forfeiture  is  the  loss  of  her  colonies,  and 
her  expulsion  forever  from  the  American  continent.  Firmness, 
and  prompt  unequivocal  action  on  our  part  is  the  only  sure  mode 
of  preserving  peace.  Let  the  Bay  Island  colony  be  discontinued, 
and  let  us  free  ourselves  from  entangling  alliances  by  the  annul- 
ment of  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  and  the  United  States 
will  assume  the  position  we  are  entitled  to  among  the  nations  of 
the  earth. 

Mr.  President,  I  will  trespass  on  the  kindness  of  the  Senate  no 
longer.  I  have  deemed  it  due  to  myself  and  the  occasion  to  make 
this  exposition  of  my  views.  I  have  availed  myself  of  the  earliest 
opportunity  afforded  by  the  removal  of  the  injunction  of  secrecy,  to 
explain  my  reasons  for  opposing  the  ratification  of  the  Clayton  and 
Bulwer  treaty.  I  have  contented  myself  with  vindicating  my  own 
course  without  assailing  any  one,  or  calling  in  question  the  con- 
duct of  others.  I  return  my  thanks  to  the  Senate  for  the  kindness 
and  courtesy  extended  to  me  on  this  occasion. 


